The Sun. — London, England, 1836-06-10 00:00:00

government, because you wish not to have the appearance, while you have the fact, of making religious distinctions ? Are they to be told that they too must suffer these penalties because they are Irishmen, and because, being Irishmen, they have the misfortune to be fellow-citizens and fellow-country men with Roman Catholics ?—( Loud cheers.) Such, Sir, are the reasons and such are the grounds on which I shall ask this House to restore the clauses that have been omitted by the Lords. If I want an authority in favour of the general policy of this measure—if Ibe told, as I was told by my Right Hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Cumberland (Sir James Graham), on a former occasion, that this was con cession, and that you ought not to make concessions, I will examine the question as it was propounded in the year 1829 by a great authority in the other House of Parliament. That authority said— " A Most Reverend Prelate had said last night, that the project of his Majesty's Ministers would not be accomplished; that the Legislature might make large and ample concessions, but that they would fail in the object which they had in view. Now, he saw no ground for indulging in an anticipation of that nature. He would ask why the Legislature had not been able, long before this, to frame efficient laws on this subject ? It was because there had been a divided Cabinet ; it was be cause there had been a divided Parliament ; it was because there was an unwillingness on the part of Government to exert its power, for the purpose of effectually tranquillising Ireland. But now there was a united Cabinet. Let them, then, do that which justice requires. Let the legislative body of the country—let the Government of the country—let all those who had influence in the country—join in one happy union, to accomplish that great object, the tranquillisation of Ireland, which he thought concession alone would produce— ( Cheers) ; and if they could not effect it by that means, they could have recourse to the exercise of legitimate authority." These are the opinions expressed in 1829 by LordLyndhurst, in the House of Lords !—( Loud and protracted cheering.) And, Sir, when reproach is cast upon the constant repetition ' of the words "justice for Ireland"—a phrase which the Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny is certainly very often in the habit of using--( Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell)—l think he has very high authority for it in this single sentence of Lord Lyndhurst's—" Let them do that which justice reouires."—( Loud cheers.) That, Sir, is in fact the justice.—. ( Cheers from the Opposition.) You passed an Act to place the Roman Catholics of this country, with respect to office and power, on a footing with the other subjects of his Majesty. Will you now contend that three-fourths of the population of the United Kingdom are entitled to the peculiar privileges, and to the franchise, because they are Protestants, and that the remaining fourth are not entitled to them, because they are Catholics ? If this be your reasoning—if this be your argument, you do not do that which justice requires ; you do not act fairly and equally by all parts of the empire, and you cannot expect that this will be in reality an United Kingdom.—( Great cheering.) My Right Hon. Friend op posite, and others, have said that the difference, after all, is not so very great ; that they agree with us in the destructive parts of the Bill, and that it is only on the constructive that they differ. Why this is, indeed, the whole difference.—( Cheers.) I had the honour of being associated with my Right Hon. Friend in the consideration of the reform in the representa tion of the people in this House, and we agreed, without much ado, that a great number of the corrupt boroughs of this coun try—amounting, I think, to fifty at first—should be destroyed. Suppose if, after agreeing upon this point, and when we came to consider the propriety of the admission of Manchester, Leeds, and other places, to a share in the representation, my Right Hon. Friend had said, " Here is a very small point upon which I differ from you. We have agreed thus far : I have cordially agreed in the destruction of these boroughs. But I do not like agitation ; I am not a friend to popular elections ; I think you have done well in destroying these bo roughs, but as to conferring the power of holding popular elections upon Manchester, Bath, or any other large town, there I totally differ from you." Supposing my Right Hon. Friend had made this declaration, I should have thought that his difference was not one of degree merely, but one which went to the whole principle of the measure.—( Hear.) Why, Sir, the Right Hon. Baronet opposite ( Sir Robert Peel), at a very splendid dinner given to him last year, in a very splendid building, by the Goldsmiths' Company, said, " I think you have done wisely ; you have built upon the old foundation." The Goldsmiths' Company were highly gratified with the Right Hon. Baronet's compliment. But what if the Right Hon. Baronet had said, " I quite agree with you in the pro priety of pulling down your old hall. It was a very unsightly and inconvenient edifice, and you did quite right in pulling it to pieces. I cannot think you have done well, however, in erecting this handsome building. I quite differ from you in that.—( Cheers, and a laugh.) I think it was a very useless waste of your local revenue, and I cannot help thinking that you would have done much better if you had asked the King's Ministers to take care of your funds, by vesting them in the hands of Commissioners."—( Loud cheers.) Undoubtedly, so far from considering this as any great compliment from the Right Hon. Gentleman, they would have been somewhat asto nished at his selecting the very point on which they felt the most pride as the theme of his disapprobation. I therefore, Sir, differ entirely from the assertion, if it be intended to be Made again, that there is any small difference, or any difference which ought not to be felt and insisted on, between the con struction and reformation which we propose, and the entire destruction of these Corporations advocated by the Lords.— (Great cheering.) In the one I see a wide plan similar to that which Parliament has already adopted in the other parts of the empire, suited to the enlightened principles of the age, fitted to lead to harmony, fitted to produce good local govern ment in Ireland, and to awaken feelings of concord and harmony between that and other parts of the empire. I see in the other a mark of degradation, a wish to create an invidious and cruel distinction—a determination that the more you seem to place all the King's subjects on an equality in future, the more Ire land shall be viewed with a sort of suspicion, and placed beyond the pale of remedy or redress.—( Loud cheers.) I ask you to adopt a more generous, to adopt a more conciliatory, to adopt "'hat I think the wiser of these two alternatives. Depend upon it that your decision will spread wide abroad, and have a great and a lasting effect.—( Loud cheers.) If you mean fairly, really, and justly to consider the people of this United Kingdom as one people, as one people will they stand against their enemies. " Sic fortis Etruria crevit, Scilicet et rerum, facta est pulcherrima Roma." Cheers.) If you adopt the other course you embark upon one fraught with difficulty and danger. Look around you upon the state of the world, and see how firmly the British empire and the British constitution stand. Foreign powers in relations 'of amity. and no fear of an interruption of the general peace and iranquillity established in England and Scotland—devoid of the least alarm ; destitute of the slightest apprehension. Manufactures flourishing ; agriculture, I hope, recovering from its late depression. An empire strong in arms, strong in wealth, strong in character, strong, above all, in the reputation of being a free country.--4 Cheering.) To an empire thus blessed and thus favoured there remains but one point from which danger may aria. Truly was it said, as I see it reported to have been, by an Hon. Friend of mine, who for fifty 'years has sat in this House, and who never acted contrary to Lis professions or swerved from his avowed principles—truly 'was it said by him, that you may make Ireland your weakness or your strength ; if you choose to make her your strength, the whole of the affairs of this mighty empire will stand indis soluble and compact. If you choose to make her your weak aess, you will have to carry on a struggle in which you can never finally succeed, and to bear the consequences. I speak ltot now of posterity, but of the present time—of plunging three-fourths of the people of Ireland into discontent and exas peration. Be assured of this, that the first cannon-ball which is fired. in Europe will be the signal of your retracting all these denirds, and of your making that concession, and doing that Justice in the hour of your need which you refused in the hey day of your glory and of your strength; and then—then—l shall say with pain and sorrow, that England is no longer the great country for which I took her, but that she refuses to con cede plain, obvious, and undeniable justice, until at last she suffers to be wrung from her interest and her fears what could not be obtained from her internal prejudices, and her determi nation to promote disunion and perpetuate discord.—(Loud and protracted cheering.) The original questio n having been put and carried, and the Order of the Day having been read, Lord J. RUSSELL again rose and said—ln moving that these amendments be now read a second time, I had perhaps better state to the House what I think will be the formal course 'of proceeding. The mode in which I shall proceed will be to postpone the two or three first clauses, in which there are no amendments of vital importance, and to move at the fourth page to restore, in the first place, clause 4, which has been struck out by the Lords.—( Hear, hear.) The motion having been put from the chair, Sir W. FOLLETT said, that it was their privilege to con sider and assent to, or dissent from, those amendments, he ad mitted ; but he did not see why it was necessary for the Noble Lord to have quoted the precedent of 1661, to show that the House of Commons had a right to dissent from the amend inents of the Lords, nor did he quite sec the application of that precedent on the present occasion. The Noble Lord seemed to say that the parties then representing the Corpora tions in that House declared that it was not consistent with their duties as trustees and representatives of those Corpora tions to permit either that the ancient Corporations should be destroyed, or that new ones should be created in their stead. But would the Noble Lord remember that at that time the Members who put that declaration upon record were represen tatives of those Corporations, and in that character they said it was not consistent with their trust to allow the old Corpora tions to be expunged or new ones to be created. He didi,not see, therefore, that the precedent was by any mea ns an apposite Hear.) The Noble Lord opposite had said that if the amendments of the Lords were carried into effect, the result Would be that a resolution moved iu that House by his Noble Friend the Member for South Lancashire, and in favour o,f which, though lost, a very large number of Members had eivided, would in effect be carried. He agreed that the a lterations made by the House of Lords did embody the in structions moved on that occasion. But he called upon the louse to remember that a considerable minority voted in fa vour of those instructions ; and the question now before them was, whether they would agree to or reject the amend- Merits of the House of Lords, sanctioning an instruction already approved by so large a proportion of the Members of that House. The Noble Lord opposite had, indeed, pro- Posed certain amendments, which he put forward as a com promise. But before he entered more particularly into the ex amination of this proposed compromise, he thought it r i g h t th at the House should fully understand the effect of the amend n'eats made by the other House, for he could not think that fi s Noble Lord had, in the statement which he had made, ; 0 "y and clearly explained them. The first and the main ob 'eat of the Bill originally introduced was the abolition of the exis ting Corporations of Ireland. It was a Bill for the pur poseV of abolishing them totally, of extirpating the existing Cor porations, of d e cl a ring their property to be public property, .. then for the purpose of creating new municipal bodies in their place. The large minority of that House who supported his Noble Friend when he moved the instruction that had been alluded to agreed to carry out that part of the Bill which went to the abolition of the existing Corporations. When he (Sir W. Follett) was told that he was not a friend to Catho lic justice and equality of civil rights, he would take the opportunity of saying that no man was more anxious than he was to see the principles of the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act carried into full and complete effect.—(" Oh, oh I" and cheers.) No man was more anxious that every civil disability should be removed, every grievance remedied, and perfect civil equality between our Roman Catholic and Protestant brethren in Ireland fully established.—(" Oh, oh 1" and loud cheers.) He might be mistaken in his opinion, but it was his belief that the portion of the Bill which went to create new corporate bodies in place of the old would have the effect of again creating exclusive bodies in Ireland, and that was one of the many reasons which induced him, and he be lieved those who had taken the same view of the question with himself, to dissent from it.—( Hear.) But he was going to call the attention of the House to the effect of the amendment. First, then, with respect to the abolition of the existing Corporations. To that part of the measure the House of Lords had agreed. The Noble Lord had seemed to complain that the other House had in some measure preserved the members of the existing Corporations. There were no such provisions, however, in the Bill. The existence of the mem bers of the existing Corporations, as such members ceased at once, and all their rights and powers were by the Bill at once determined. The abolition of the existing Corporations the Lords had agreed to, they had agreed to remove what on the other side of the House had so often been denounced as one of the main evils under which Ireland laboured, viz., the existence of exclusive Protestant Corporations in Catholic communities. These the House of Lords had agreed to abo lish, and to treat their property as public property.—( Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) Yes, he was not going to shrink from the question.—( Cheers.) The House of Lords had met the Noble Lord to this extent, that they consented to the property of these Corporations being treated as public pro perty, and that it should be applied for the benefit of the in habitants of the various existing municipalities in Ireland. The Lords had also adopted a clause which went up from that House to preserve inviolate the rights of existing freemen. These were the points to which the House of Lords had agreed. Now, then, he came to the question, what were the functions of the existing Corporations which it was deemed so desirable on the opposite side of the House to preserve ? He had stated it on a former discussion, and he now asked the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite to deny it if be could, that the only functions which would cease to be exercised in conse quence of this Bill, and the only powers and authority pos sessed by the existing Corporations, were those which re lated to the administration of justice. All control over municipal government—all control of watching, lighting, paving, cleansing, &c.-.all which constituted municipal authority, had been already taken from theni ; but they did exercise the functions of .Justices of the Peace—they did appoint Magistrates, Sheriffs, and police. But was it a part and parcel of the policy of the Bill, as sent from that House, to continue those privileges to the proposed new Corpora. tions ? No, said the Noble Lord, " As to the administration of justice, there is little or no difference between us," and the Bill therefore proposed to invest the Lord Lieutenant of the Crown with the appointment of the magistrates and sheriffs in all the cities and towns, and counties of cities and towns, in Ireland. It also, he believed, invested in the Lord Lieute nant for the time being the appointment of the most important office of coroner. The Lords had adopted the same principle. In principle both the original Bill and the present amended Bill agreed in this point, and both Bills proceeded on a dif ferent principle to the English Bill—both proceeded on the assumption that, at least as regarded the administration of jus tice, there was something in the present state of society in Ireland which called for a different mode of legislation than that adopted towards England.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Both Bills had proceeded on the principle of taking the administration of justice out of the hands of the Munici pal Corporations, and vesting it in the Government. The Noble Lord had declaimed with great eloquence on the ad vantages which had flowed from Corporations, and which might be expected to follow the establishment of the amended Corporation system in Ireland. He ( Sir W. Follett) could well understand that, in a half-savage state of society, in a state of society just emerging into civilization—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. O'Connell.) He understood that cheer. He was not speaking of the present state of Ireland ; he was speaking of the time when those Corporations were of service. —( Hear, bear.) What, he should like to ask the Noble Lord, was the difference between the local government and the pros perity of those towns which had Corporations and those which had not?—( Hear, hear.) He should like to ask whether Man chester—( Hear, hear)—whether Birmingham—were at all inferior in point of prosperity or the excellence of their local government to those towns which possessed the advan tage of corporate government ?—( Hear.) Could the Noble Lord discover any difference between Westminster, without a Corporation, bordering us it did upon the City of London, and that city, with a large and popular Corporation at its head? Was Westminster less prosperous, and was its bueiness worse managed, or did the boroughs of Finsbury or Mary lebone suffer by comparison with their corporate neighbour? —( Hear, hear, hear.) He did not agree in the dogma that the prosperity of the Irish towns, or indeed that the prosperity of any town in the present day, depended on its Corporations. Both sides of that House, and of the House of Lords, had, with relation to the property of the old Corporations, therefore proceeded on one principle, namely, that the property was to be dealt with as public property. It was so dealt with by the Bill sent up to the other House ; that Bill placed it under various species of control, it ordered advowsons to be sold, it directed its alienation, it dealt with it in every possible way, but in vested it in the new bodies, which were to be chosen by 51., and in some instances by the 101., householders of the towns of Ireland. Now in what way had the House of Lords dealt with this property ? The Noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in arguing against the amendments of the House of Peers, had contended, as a matter of objection, that the Commissioners who would be appointed in pursuance of the Lords' amendments would have the complete controul over the Corporation funds, unchecked by the parties for whose benefit those funds were intended. But this was not the fact. By this Bill the Commissioners would have no such power. There were other checks than that which the Noble Lord pointed out. The property, it was true, would be in vested in Commissioners appointed by the Crown, but the Bill expressly directed that the whole of the income of the pro perty should be applied in the first place to pay the salary of the Recorder, next the salary of the Judges of the local Courts, and next it went to the trustees under local Acts of Parliament, and next to trustees under the 9th George IV., wherever that Act had been adopted, to be applied by them in aid of the rates. This, therefore, was not a board like those which had been alluded to—a board at which jobbing of all kinds could be carried on. The Commissioners would not have power to order a road to be mended here, or a job to be done there ; but the controul of the expenditure would still be vested in the representatives of the inhabitants and rate-payers, either as trustees under some local Act, or as trustees chosen under the statute of the 9th of George IV. It so happened that all the eleven towns mentioned by the Noble Lord had every one of them lo cal boards, and the others had adopted the statute of the 9th George IV. Indeed, he believed that there was no town in Ireland possessed of any Corporate property, with, he be lieved, one only exception, where a local board did not already exist. The Commissioners, therefore, could not have the discre tion which the Noble Lord had supposed. As the law now stood, every town in Ireland might adopt the provisions of the 9th George IV., and the Si. householders might, under that Act, elect their own Commissioners, and then the Commissioners appointed by this Bill would be bound to give up the dis posal of all the Corporate property to those Commissioners. There was another matter of some importance ; he alluded to the tolls. In several cases the collection of tolls was vested in the inhabitants of different towns; and of this he was was fully convinced, that there was not a town in Ireland which would not be benefitted by the abolition of all the tolls on goods brought into those towns. It was so stated in the report which had been made to the House upon the subject, and upon that report the Lords had acted, and had given to the Commissioners the power of abolishing the tolls in such cases as they should deem expedient. What was the next point in the amendments of the Lords which it became necessary to inquire into ? The Noble Lord the Se cretary of State for the Home Department complaimed that the Bill had been altogether changed ; that the preamble had been altered ; and that of a Bill containing 118 clauses 104 had been rejected. Now this was not the fair way to put it. The Lords had made no alteration in the Bill except for the purpose of vesting the property of the Corporations in these Commissioners, and of carrying out the details of that prin ciple.—(Hear.) It was not because the preamble of the Bill had been altered—it was not because 104 clauses had been dispensed with—that it was fair to hand the Bill as it had been handed by the Hon. Member for Finsbury at a public meeting d in ea o l rd w er it t h o put the itlhiewandiehcaphatad been so ndumquestiotrneaotfed by thehowthey othersliould House ?—(Hear, hear.) The principle upon which they split s b e ofut it Lords would agreednot r t e o e t ht to e t a h b e o li tion o r p9ro he a c t i n o s u , owfasexoinsetin°g only. crea tion of new ones in their room. This was the point of dif ference, and on this point all the much-talked-of alterations depended. He was not going to fatigue the House by re-argu ing this question. One thing was clear, and he begged to ask the Hon. Gentleman the Attorney-Gentl eman for land to point out to him any instance, so far as regarded the regu lation of municipal affairs or local government, in which there existed or was likely to exist any necessity for deviating from the Bill now before the House ? No deviation was wanted for the purpose of local government.—(Hear, hear.) If, there fore, it was sought at all, it must be sought for some other purposes.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had told the House that he would not insist on the full and original Bill, because he had no hope that it would be adopted ; but the Noble Lord proposed something which he called on the House to adopt as a fair compromise between the two parties. Now, if the proposition of the Noble Lord were one which it was probable the other House would assent to, there could be little doubt that it would be most cordially adopted by the House of Commons ; but if, on investigation, it should be found quite impossible that any proposition like that pro posed by the Noble Lord could be assented to by Hon. Mem bers on that side of the House without involving themselves in a perfect compromise of principles, and without abandoning altogether the ground which they took in voting for the in struction, then it would be quite impossible to expect that what the Noble Lord treated as a compromise could be assented by the Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House.— (Cheers.) Let him remind the House that the Noble Lord said the House of Lords had taken a course which called on them to assert their privileges, because their Lordships had sanctioned an amendment which had been previously rejected by a majority of that House. Now, instead of giving new Cor. porations to all the disfranchised towns, the Noble Lord pro posed to give Corporations to 11 of the largest towns only. A proposition less extensive than this had been already made in the other House, and rejected by a large majority, and yet the Noble Lord, who in great alarm called on them to assert their privileges, because the Peers had affirmed a proposition which they had rejected, deliberately proposed to them to return to the other House, and say, " You negatived by a large majo rity a proposal made to you to confine the Municipal Corpora tions to seven of the largest towns ; but now, in the hope of making a compromise with you, we ask you to pass a Bill extending the same principle to twelve towns."—( Hear, hear. ) This certainly was a most extraordinary mode of effecting a compromise.—( Hear, hear.) But he would meet the dim culty in the face. He objected absolutely to the creation of these new bodies. For municipal objects, as he had before said, they were quite useless. They might be made, and he believed they would be, schools of agitation, communicating with similar institutions in the capital. They might be made, and probably would be made, instruments for disturbing the peace and tranquillity of Ireland ; and although it might be said that it 'was intended to exclude the smaller towns in Ire- land, yet it would be impossible to prevent the flame from spreading, if Corporations were given to Dublin, London derry, and other great towns of the north.—(Cheers and counter-cheers.) Yes, he would not conceal his object, for lie would not conceal from himself, it was impossible for Hon. Members opposite to conceal, that the object of their ne w proposal was to create these normal schools of agitation in the large towns ; and was be to be asked to accede to this as a compromise, when the main danger which was anti cipated was from the larger towns—a danger which it would be impossible to confine within its original limits?—(Loud cheers.) Such was the first step in the compromises which they were enabled to make. They were to give Corporations to twelve of the larger towns. What was the next step ? That in reference to twenty-two more it was to be made imperative on the inhabitants to accept the provisions of the 9th Geo. IV. Was the House aware of the provisions of this Act, and of the way in which such an Act could be in troduced into the towns in Ireland ? Twenty-one inhabitant householders, rated at 201. a year, at least, were requisite to put the Act in motion, and, on their application to the Lord Lieutenant, he might direct a meeting to be called of the inhabitants rated at 51. and upwards, and the majority at such meeting decided whether the Act should be put in force there or not. There was a check, it would be perceived, on the imposition of this Act, by requiring, as a preliminary step, the assent of twenty-one housekeepers of 201. a year each ; and the reason for that check was this—the Commissioners ap pointed at such meeting had a power of imposing rates in a different mode to that usually practised, namely, on a gra duated scale, by which, for instance, persons possessed of one class of houses would pay Is. in the pound, whilst the next class might pay only 9d., and the next 6d. Well, then, it was proposed, as to these other towns, to make this Act imperative, and the Commissioners to be elected by the 5/. householders were to have the whole property and management of the Corporation funds invested in them. Now, what he should like to know would be the effect of forcing this statute upon these towns after the discussion ? —( Hear, hear.) In what respect would such Commissioners, appointed as such Commissioners would be, differ from a new Corporation ?—( Hear, hear.) They would be elected by the b/. householders; they would have the property of the town transferred to them ; they would have the power of levying rates ; they would form a body, different, it was true, but hav ing precisely the same evil effect and influence as the new Corporations sought to be created.--( Hear, hear.) Was this, he would again ask, to be called a compromise ?—(Loud cheers.) Even if this Bill, as altered, had not received the sanction of the other House, he would have taken the same course as he had now adopted; but he did not deny that when they had sent up a Bill to the other House, and their Lordships had made certain alterations in conformity with the expressed views of a very large number of the Members of that House, it was with him an additional reason for ad hering to his opinions.—(Hear, hear.) But there were parts of this Bill which the Noble Lord complained had been omitted. Some fifty or sixty clauses had been omitted ; but why ? Because they related to the election of corporate officers—the registration of the voters—the erection of the polling booths—the duties of the revising barrister—and the whole machinery of elections. After the principle which their Lordships had adopted, it became of course necessary to expunge the whole of these clauses, and let him ask if they were now discussing that question for the first time, whether in the present state of society in Ireland--whether, when the great bulk of the population of that country was ar rayed against its property—it would at all tend to promote peace and tranquillity to introduce into the midst of such con flicting elements the annual excitement of annual municipal elections, accompanied by all the paraphernalia of revising barristers, returning officers, and all the other election con comitants ?—( Loud cheers.) Would this tend to tranquillise Ireland? Why, even if the creation of those new Corpora tions were in itself unobjectionable, the means by which their existence was to be annually continued, would alone tend to destroy the peace, prospir:ty, and happiness of every town on which a boon so pernicious should be conferred.—(Hear, bear.) The Noble Lord complained that the preamble of his Bill had been altered. The Bill was introduced for the pro fessed purpose of securing the peace and the tranquillity of Ireland. Would it do so ?—(Loud cries of " Hear," from both sides of the House.) They had heard the discussion which had taken place in that House ; they had heard the lion. Gentleman opposite say that the Bill now before them was an insult to Ireland.—( Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman abused that remark. He could assure that Hon. and Learned Member, that he would be the last person to offer an insult to Ireland.—(Cheers.) He might have taken a mistaken view of the subject, but he was not satisfied that the mode in which those who called themselves the friends of Ireland acted was most likely to tend either to the prosperity of that country, or to the peace and happiness of its people.--(Loud cheers.) He did think those were not friends of Ireland who could speak as they had done of the miseries of its starving population, who could stand up in that House and declare that 2,000,000 of their fellow-countrymen were actually in a state of starvation, and yet never attempt anything to raise them from a state so de plorable—( Hear, hear)—but who, on the contrary, pursued a course which, in his humble judgment, must necessarily operate to the prejudice of the commercial and agricultural prosperity of Ireland ; and consequently render their condi tion worse even than at present.--(Loud cheers.) This re minded him of a contrast which bad been drawn between Ire land and Scotland. The Noble Lord had asked what made the difference between those two countries. Was it, he would ask, to schools of agitation that Scotland was indebted for her prosperity ?—(" Yes, yes.") Yes ! What ! was it agitation that had fertilized her soil, filled her ports with ships, beau tified and enriched her towns, and placed her commerce and manufactures on an eqnality with the commerce and manu facturers of Great Britain ?—( Hear, hear, hear)—or was it, as the Hon. Gentleman had said, the abolition of Bishops and the destruction of the Episcopal Church ? Tho prosperity of Scotland did not date so far back ; but it might be traced to the time when she began to share the same insti tutions and the same laws as England—institutions which the Scotch were wise enough to cherish, laws which they were prudent enough to obey.—( Loud cheers.) No; they had no schools of agitation ; they had not even a popular represen tation.—( Hear.) How, then, became they so prosperous ?-- (" They had no tithes," and cries of " Order.") What, then, had we not paid tithes in England ?—( Hear.) Did the pros perity of a country depend on the payment or non-payment of tithes ?—(Hear, hear, hear.) No, Scotland owed her prosperity to her people, who bent all their energies to make the most of the advantages which the connection with England had opened to them. And, since the first burst of national discontent disappeared, obedience to the laws, free dom from revolution, safety of life, of property, and of capital, had been their characteristics, and had, conse quently, secured the prosperity of Scotland.—( Hear, hear.) How different the state of things which prevailed in Ireland. Ireland had for many years been on the same footing as Eng land and Scotland. The vast dominions and extensive colonies of England had been opened to her enterprise. How was it that capital had not flowed in upon her? Ask those gentlemen who called themselves the friends of Ire land—(Hear)—ask those who taunted him with being an enemy of Ireland.--(Hear, hear.) His notion of friendship did indeed differ from theirs, for he could tell the people of Ireland that it was disobedience to the laws—it was the or ganised and disorganised system of agitation which prevailed there, that, even should it succeed in its destructive objects, even should it abolish tithes, abolish municipal institutions, or , even accomplish the supremacy of the Catholic Church itself it was this which was the ruin of Ireland—it was this which would continue to prove the curse of that unhappy country, and make them ultimately the victims of a tyranny of which they permitted themselves to be made the instruments.— (Great cheering.) The object of the proposed amendment to this Bill appeared to him to be to strengthen the hands of agitation, and to provide new tools and instruments for its work. He should, therefore, decidedly oppose it. To minor alterations he should not object, but to the great principles of the Bill he religiously adhered. He believed that the propo sition of his Majesty's Government with respect to Ireland was not likely to carry into effect the objects which it professed, and that it would not tend to the promotion of peace nor to the removal of civil and religious discord. He conceived that if such a measure were to pass it would only fret and irritate existing sources of discontent, and increase the misfortunes and unhappiness of the country. He therefore gave to the amendments of the Lords his cordial support. He should have supported those amendments even if they bad not been sanctioned by the other branch of the Legislature ; but, having been so sanctioned, the respect which he felt bound to pay to the opinions of their Lordships operated as an additional reason in their favour: He did not agree with those who called on the House to stand on their privileges, because the Lords had dissented from a measure sent up to them. It was true they had privileges ; but so had the House of Lords also. The Lords had a right to make amendments as well as the Commons ; they had made amendments in this measure ; these amendments had been confirmed by the previously ex pressed opinion of a very large minority of the Members of that House; the amendments thus made were at the least en titled to respectful consideration, and to him they became an additional reason for again taking the same course which he adopted when this Bill was first proposed.—( Loud cheers.) Mr. S. O'BRIEN said it was not now a question whether municipal institutions would be advantageous to Ireland or not ; the question now to be decided was, whether England would permit Ireland to share in so great a blessing, or whe ther Ireland was to be insulted by a declaration that she was unfit to enjoy equal rights and privileges with the sister country. The Irish people were not now inferior either in point of power, position, or patriotism, to the condition in which they were at the time of the Union, and therefore if the Legisla ture were to remove the reciprocal interest by which the two countries are bound it would be impossible to deny that Ire land was treated most unjustly. He considered that the pro- THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, JUNE 10, 1836. position now made to the House by the Noble Lord would • wipe away the insult which had been given to Ireland by the alterations which had been made in this measure in another place, and therefore he felt it to be his duty to give that pro position his support.—( Hear.) When this measure was first introduced, it was hoped that it would be met in a spirit of conciliation ; but in that hope they had been disappointed, and if the proposition which the Noble Lord had made was re jected, it was impossible either for him or for any one else to answer for the consequences. One result of its rejection wo,uld be to occasion a direct collision with the other branch of the Legislature.—(Hear, hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell and one or two other Hon. Members.) A collision of the two Houses of Parliament would of course put a total stop to all legislation for Ireland, and the mischiefs which must arise from so undesirable a state of things must be ob vious to all persons gifted with anything like reflection. It was, he thought, impossible to contemplate such an evil without a wish to devise means to remedy it. While he said this, he by no means considered the House of Lords as a thing so pe culiar—so sacred—as that it ought not to be touched ; and certainly if that House should again refuse to pass this Bill, he saw no means by which they could escape from the dilemma in which such conduct would place them, but by at once de termining on effecting extensive changes in that branch of the Legislature. They should not forget that there was a time when even patience was not a virtue. Mr. E WART said that pleased as he was with the dexterity of the arguments of the Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter, and elegant as was the phraseology in which those arguments were conveyed, he must say that he was surprised to find, with all the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's acuteness as well as special pleading, he had not touched even once on that which formed the gist of the question which they were called upon to consider. Hon. Gentlemen opposite wished the Legislature to produce any inequality between the two nations ; but what, he would ask them was the professed basis on which the act of Union was agreed to ? Why, perfect equality.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. O'Connell and other Hon. Members on the Ministerial benches.) Throughout the speech of the Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter no allusion whatever was made to this part of the subject, al though he had told them that to grant Corporations to Ireland would be to establish an exclusive system, in which the Ca tholics would have the whole advantage. The Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter had stated that municipalities were fit only for barbarous ages, when a check was necessary to be put to baronial influence ; but did the Hon and Learned Gentleman forget that the people as much required protection now against baronial influence as at any former period of the history of this country? If, however, municipalities were in jurious to civilization, why had the despotic Government of Prussia conferred them on the Prussian people? Or was France so dark and barbarous a nation that such institutions were necessary in that country? But the argument was un tensble. With a full knowledge, then, of the advantage of municipalities to the towns of England and Scotland, how was it possible that they could refuse Corporations to such places as Dublin, Limerick, and Belfast? Mr. O'CONNELL—You have forgotten Cork. Mr. E WART admitted that Cork had also a right to be included in the enumeration, and said that the objection which had been raised to this Bill was an instance of the greatest in fatuation ever witnessed within the walls of Parliament. For his own part he was unable to reconcile the conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth in 1829 with that which he was pursuing in 1836.—( Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.) The advocates of inequality he regarded as the enemies of both Crown and people, and he knew of but one who had acted on that principle. Hon. Gentlemen op posite were following in the steps of Napoleon Bonaparte, whose first act of power was the suppression of all the munici pal institutions of France ; and he could not help congratu lating them on the choice of the example which they had made for their conduct. If they refused to Ireland that which had been granted to England and Scotland, they would not only excite the indignation of the Irish people, but affect the soli dity of the Throne. The Noble Lord's speech, he must say, was worthy a Minister of the Crown.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell and other Members on the Minis terial benches.) Colonel CONOLLY said that it was most unfair, without bringing the merits of the question before them, to stamp those who sat on his side of the House as agitators, and per sons who acted from unjustifiable motives oppresively towards the people of Ireland.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. O'Connell and other Members on the Ministerial benches.) Hon. Members opposite had talked about the dignity of that House, but he was at a loss to understand what their notions of the dignity of the House was ? They had been called " Protestant agitators ;" but a more unhappy phrase could not have been selected. It was wholly inapplicable to them, because nothing was more foreign to their nature than thinking even of offering insult to any class of the Irish people. The exclusive character of the Irish Corporations had been over and over again represented as a grievance in both branches of the Legislature ; and the question, therefore, was, would they be justified in substituting a less obnox ious system of exclusion for a more obnoxious system, es pecially when the only effect of their doing so could have would be to strengthen and extend the influence of a baneful agitation?—(H ear , hear.) What had happened during the last recess? Why, it was notorious that an Hon. and Learned Sergeant had gone about with two individuals who had recently been liberated from Kilmainhsm gaol by the exercise of the Royal mercy, to create excitement iu dif ferent parts of Ireland on this subject. All those persons found themselves at a loss for, was an audience ; and yet such were the parties to whom in future corporate rights were pro posed to be confided. The two culprits to whom he alluded, had been sent to prison for a flagrant affray which took place some time previously on the very spot where, with the Hon. and Learned Sergeant, they had lately appeared to stimulate the public mind on this subject, which was endeavoured to be coupled with the question of tithes, for the purpose of infla ming the bad passions of the people. The attempt, however, proved.abortive, and a similar attempt to create disorder in Belfast and the other principal towns of the North, was equally a failure. His constituents had requested him to sup port the amendments which the Noble Lord had made in this Bill, and happy he was to second their wishes.—(Hear, from Mr. O'Connell and other Members on the Ministerial benches.) He could assure the Hon. Members opposite that he treated their interruption as it deserved, for it was even be neath his contempt. He believed that the real object of the supporters of this Bill was to get into their hands the property of such of the Irish Corporations as had any, in order to ac complish repeal by means of the agitation and revolutionary doctrines which the new system would enable them to pro mulgate throughout the country, He had no hesitation to de clare that any measure that would tend to increase the power of the Honourable Member for Kilkenny, was dangerous to Ireland. . . _ _ _ ...••••••• Lord CLEMENTS said that those who in England con curred in the amendments of the House of Lords, and who were anxious to come forward in support of them, imitated the conduct of Lord Lyndhurst, and were an anxious to get up an orthodox Protestant agitation. He believed that they were anxious to put a stop to the course of liberal Government, not only in this but in every other covntry. The House of Lords considered the Municipal Reform of lost year an abomination, and they were determined not to extend the same principle to Ireland. He believed that there was a portion of the Tory party who were anxious to deprive Ireland of all free institu tions whatsoever. Colonel BERKELEY said that when the Coercion Bill was nefore the House he had acted a most decided and straight forward part with respect to that measure. He had on that occasion been taunted by the Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny with having received hospitality in that country, hospitality which he ( Captain Berkeley) would never forget. When he afterwards went before his constituents, he was charged with having supported the Coercion Bill, but never until the present time had be found reason to blush for the vote he had given on that occasion. When he had heard the Noble Lord quote the words that had been used by a Noble Ex-Chancellor, he regretted the vote he had given. The Noble and Gallant Gentleman concluded by expressing his de termination to support the resolutions of the Noble Lord. Mr. G. PRICE said that such words as those which had been imputed to a Noble Individual in another place were de serving of the deepest reprobation. He had known the country alluded to, and had resided in it ; and he had there formed friendships and associations which he had recurred to with the highest pleasure. He considered the language that had been referred to totally unworthy of a senator either there or in any other place.--( Hear, hear.) He feared, however, that the Noble Lord opposite, from some deficiency of memory, must have been inaccurate in stating the argument and the language of the Noble Individual whose name had been introduced. He never could believe that the Noble Lord had used that expres sion unless it was conneeted with some other argument, and which in the whole context might be perfectly harmless.-- (Cheers.) The Noble Lord opposite no doubt quoted the expressions in order to raise a temporary feeling.—(Cheers from the Opposition.) He had listened to the speech which the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department had addressed to them, and he would take the liberty of telling the Noble Lord an anecdote, not of the middle—( A laugh)— but of the later ages. When a Chanceller of Sweden sent his son to the Congress of Westphalia, the latter, who was a modest youth, feeling reluctant to go, from an impression of his own inexperience and incapacity, he was addressed by the father in these words—" Nescis, mi fili, parva quam sapientia regitur m un d us ."—(Ch eers .) In considering this question they were bound to consider what was the ancient history of municipal institutions. He did not, strictly speaking, wish for the destruction of any of our institutions, and he recollected that when on a former occasion he stated that he abhorred the destruction of the minor institutions of 'France, he was taunted with wishing to pursue towards Ireland the course which he deprecated in France. Those institutions were swept away by the decree of a tempestuous assembly, He admitted that there was cleverness in the observations which had been retorted upon his argument. But if he had been asked to choose the alternative, h e would prefer the destruc tion of th ese b o di es t o h av i ng t h em turned into Jacobin clubs —normal schools of agitation—with a Danton and a Robes pierre i n eac h , to mou ld t h em to their wishes and wield them for thei r own purposes .—( Hear.) It had been contended that, England and Scotland having received a measure for the reform of their municipal institutions, Ireland ought to receiv e a similar measure. It was even held that to refuse such a measure was an insult to Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) He considered such an expression to be most unphilosophic and unstatesmanlike. In moulding the institutions of a country they were not to be guided by the institutions which another country might possess, so much as by the mode in which that particular country obeyed its laws, by the habits, an d tem p er, and character of the people of such country. The Hon. Member proceeded to describe the excitement and acerbity of feeling attendant upon elections, and he con tended t hat more of this ill-f ee li ng p re vailed at a single municipal el ection than at fifty Parl i ame ntary elections.—( Hear, hear.) If this was the case in England, how much morg did the ob jections to such a measure apply as respected Ireland— amongst a people warm-tempered—kind-hearted--high , spirited—easily excited, and easily led away by their feelings and their prejudices, to be the easy dupes of im postors and mountebanks.—(Year, hear.) If municipal power was placed in such hands as these, it was not possible to foresee to what objects it might not be perverted. But how dangerous was this extension of power, when it was considered that municipal agitation could bring to its aid a power which not merely exercised a perfect influence, socially and morally, but which (as we understood the Hon. Gentleman) held out the terrors of another world to aid its influence and assist its purposes ?—( Cheers and disapprobation from the Ministerial Benches.) It was idle to deny that the opinions which had been supppoted by a large and important minority in that House had been sustained by a large majority elsewhere, to whose opinions all deference was due. The Noble Lord then, in asking them to reverse their decisions, could not expect that he could find a single waverer at that side of the House— ( Great and continued cheering from the Opposition Benches)—more particularly when they found their opi nions sanctioned by a large majority of that body whom he (Mr. G. Price) would ever consider the guardian of our liberties and the bulwark of the Constitution—he meant the House of Peers.—(Great cheering from the Oppo sition.) It was impossible for them to conceal from them selves that the whole measure was the price of the sup port given to the Government by the Hon. and Learned 'Member for Kilkenny. The Hon. Member for Kilkenny as sisted the Noble Lord and his Noble and Right Hon. col- leagues b y 11(ssui7pOrt,;;Jd in return the Noble Lord and hi s Noble and' Right lion. colleagues felt bound to assist the Hon. Member for Kilkenny to carry out his views in Ireland. --(Laughter, and cheering from the Opposition,) He (Mr. Grove Price) did not know what might have been transacted in secret divan. He knew nothing of the secret articles that might exist between the Hon. Gentleman and his Majesty's Government as to the terms on which they could retain his support ; but be believed if those secret articles could be seen it would be found: that one of the principal articles stipu lated for the surrender of the Irish Church and the Irish Cor porations.—The proceedings of the secret divan had been openly and candidly avowed some time ago by the Hon. Mem ber for Tipperary, but at the same time they had been denied by the Hon. Member for Dublin. He would leave those Hon. Members, however, to settle the contradiction between them. He had read Shakspeare, and he would remind the Noble Lord of the celebrated meeting between Hotspur and Owen Glendower, when the partition of the empire takes place to conciliate the most inveterate foe in England.—( Hear, hear.) This was exactly similar with respect to the Municipal and Church Bills. The Noble Lordfirst says we shall do as you de sire with regard to Ireland—you shall be dictator there pro vided you allow me to be Minister here.—(Great and conti nued cheering from the Opposition.) He hoped that he had discussed the question with good temper.—(" Hear," and a laugh.) He had never spoken any sentiments but his own.— ( Hear.) They had been told that a terrible collision of the two Houses of Parliament would take place in case the mea sure of his Majesty's Government was not agreed to. He cer tainly was quite at a loss to know what was meant by colli sions. Did the Noble Lord mean to say that the House of Lords did not possess the same right to examine, amend, or reject any Bill that might be before them, as was possessed by the House of Commons ?—( Cheers.) A few years ago they would have been ashamed to have heard that right disputed. He spoke the mere language of political scripture when he said that collision was a term unknown to the British Constitu- tion. No Hon. Member of that House possessing the least constitutional knowledge would venture to say that the House of Lords had not a full right to form an independent judgment on any measure sent up to them from this House.—( Cheers.) The Hon. Member concluded by deprecating a state of things in which the rule of physical force was to take the place of our beautifully bilanced Constitution, and in which the country was to be placed at the mercy of those who were without the talent to guide, or those who had the folly to obey. The Hon. Member concluded amidst loud cheers from the Opposi tion benches. Mr. WA RD said that the Hon. Member for Sandwich need not go so far as Westphalia for authority to show with how little wisdom mankind was governed. Indeed, there was no better illustration of the fact than that furnished by the con duct of the other branch of the Legislature—( Cheers from the Ministerial benches)—or than that of an individual in another place, who would have been but of little weight if he de pended on himself, but who derived some importance from the fact of his being selected by the proudest aristocracy in the world to stand forth as their champion and leader in the other House of Parliament.—( Ministerial cheers and confusion.) Hoff. MEMBER here rose to order, and asked whether it was competent to the Hon. Member who had possession of the House to indulge in personal allusions to a Member of the other branch of the Legislature? _ The SPEAKER was understood to admit that such a course was not in order. Mr. WARD contended that he was perfectly free to deal with the arguments, the allusions, and explanations which had begun at th opposite side of the House. The same HON. .MEIkIBER who before rose to order again asked the Speaker to say distinctly whether such a course could be persisted in ? _ The SPEAKER was understood to repeat his former answer. Mr. WARD insisted that it was not by him the rule had 1 been violated. It had been begun on the other side ; but still he would not proceed further in that line of observation. With ' regard to the amendments of the Noble Lord (Russell) to the Municipal Bill as it came down from the other House, al though he should consent to them, he must confess it was with reluctance. Precedents had been set aside with regard to the manner in which this Bill was treated in the House of Lords, and amendments were sent down to the House of Commons, framed in the spirit of a resolution, which that House had re jected. For this reason the Bill, as altered by their Lord ships, ought to be set aside, and he should vote against its being received, but for his belief that every compromise on the subject would be rejected by the other House.—(Oppo sition cheers.) Ile believed that the attempt at compromise would do nothing except place those who concurred with the Noble Lord more in the right. When the importance of the subject was considered, comprising as it did a third part of the empire, he wondered at the futility of the arguments which were used to show why Ireland should not have the same municipal reform as England. There was nothing but the stale story of normal schools of agitation. Much had been said about coalition on the other side.—(Ministerial cheers.) It was natural for persons to coalesce whose tastes and prin ciples were congenial.--(Loud and continued cheers from the Opposition.) Hon. Members might cheer ever so loudly, but the congeniality of those on one side was to do gross in justice to Ireland. while that of those on the other side—( Here the voice of the Hon. Member was drowned by loud cheers from both sides of the House.) There was, however, no se cret contract, but an open and fair bond of union. The meet ing alluded to was attended by 300 Members of that House. There could therefore be no secret, and when these 300 coalesced, they dragged the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir Robert Peel) from his Ministerial seat.—(Cheers from the Ministe rial benches.) Yes, they outvoted him in his own Parliament, by coalescing in principle with a Ministry which was deter mined to redress the wrongs of Ireland. The Hon. Member for Sandwich had talked much of collision, but the collisions of former times were mere matters of etiquette, whilst the ques tion now was one of principle, and which involved an organic change. Such a collision was one to which he should look forward with regret, as the business of the country and the machinery of the Government must stand still ; but those on the other side, instead of lending their assistance to avoid such a collision, only endeavoured to force it on by refusing to aid in a compromise.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. HAMILTON, as Member for Dublin, felt himself bound to say that, although the Corporation of that city might be a political body, it exercised its politics for the best of purposes. It exercised them in a spirit of attachment to 813- tish connection, in a spirit of regard for British interest, in a spirit of devotion to the Protestant faith, and of loyalty to a Protestant King. They had kept their faith heretofore, and they would still preserve it; and he felt that, in supporting the amendments made in the other House, and opposing the motion of the Noble Lord opposite, he was speaking the sen timents of the Corporation of Dublin.—(Cheers.) Why did he resist the appropriation ? Not from any fear for the Pro testant religion, for that had a stay stronger than the arm of man to support it, and did not look for assistance from the law. But had this clause no political effect ? Was there no demo cratic encroachment behind ?—(Cheers.) Was not the at tempt to preserve the corporate system in its new shape an effort to advance the debasing principle of democracy ? This was not reform. The measure of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, when he amended the criminal code ; that of the Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire, when he proposed the measure for doing away with negro slavery—these deserved the name of reform. They were car ried for the principles which were embodied in them.—( Hear, hear.) With a reference to principle, and to principle alone, all great measures should be discussed. In Ireland a demo cracy was already organized to an extent which no other coun try in the world could exhibit, and this democracy would be greatly advanced by the re-construction of Corporations in the proposed plan. On this ground, then, he could not assent to the proposition of the Noble Lord opposite.—( Cheers. ) Mr. O'LOGHL EN expected that the Hon. Member would support a measure which included the Corporation of the city which he represented in that' House. With regard to the measure before them, it had been said by the Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter that there was little difference between it and that sent down from the other House ; and the Hon. Member said in support of that opinion, that the Corporations of Ireland had little to do, except as regarded the administra tion of justice, and that the Bill as sent up from this House shut them out from this. Did the Hon. arid Learned Gen tleman mean to tell those at all acquainted with Ireland that Corporations had nothing to do but in connexion with the ad ministration of justice? ' Why, the property which the Cor poration of Dublin had to administer, amounted to 34,0001., and this at present was applied exclusively to sectarian pur poses. Had the appointment to local offices in every corporate town in Ireland no effect upon the state of society in that country ? The Bill which went up to the Lords from that House did decidedly take the administration of justice out of the hands of the corporate officers ; but it did so because of the objections made in an early part of the discussion by the opposite party ; and was it not too much that this same party should now make that which was done at their own sugges tion a matter of taunt ?_( Ministerial cheers.) But the Bill as it went up to the Lords, left the management of corporate property to the burgesses. The Bill, as sent down by the Lords, took away this control, and vested it in what he should, for distinction sake, call the Royal Commissioner!, who might after war d s , if th ey t h oug h t fi t , vest i t i n Commissioners appoint e d un d er t h e 9th of George IV. ; but then .the towns in which th ere were l oca l b oar d s un d er t hi s .A.e! in were very few in numb er . Why take this circuitous_mniiso Irelandm ode: Why not confer the po w er directly on the Local C sioners if there were no sinister object? What wouid be the result if the Royal Commissioners, who were to have the power of conferring or withholding the controul, were to be appointed by those " aliens in blood, in language, and religion ? " (Loud Ministerial cheers.) There was another difference in the Bill as sent down by the Lords, which would have the ef fect of making the present corporate officers Commissioners, and thus perpetuate for their lives the power and emoluments of those at present holding civil offices. In Cork there were fifteen or twenty offices which by the tortuous operation of the Bill—whether this part of the machinery was suggested by a gentleman from Cork or not he did not know—which would be continued in one family.—( Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) It was said on the other side, that every office con nected with the administration of justice was to be vested in the Government. This he did not object to, but when they came to the appointment of town clerks, and clerks of the peace, why should they have their appointments for life ? One of these officers was closely connected with the administration of justice, and yet he was to be made independent of the Govern-. ment—a person who was to have the power of striking, and correcting, and preserving the lists of voters. He did not think any officer for life should possess such power, which he might exercise for political purposes. The Hon. Member opposite asked what good could be expected from the town councils in Ireland, what was to be their definite or useful object, what power were they to be invested with for the sub stantial benefit of the citizens ? Would not Commissioners serve the purpose ?—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Well, but why appoint them in England? Why not object to them, and in their stead appoint Commissioners ?—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial side.) In the town, to single this out of many, there was a population of 11,000 ; the Corpora tion had property to the amount of 1,000/. a year, which was all absorbed by the salaries of the mayor and the other corpo rate officers. Now, the townsmen assessed themselves at 6001. a year, which was considered sufficient to meet all the neces sary expenses of the town, being 4001. a year less than what the Corporation exp en d e d i n salaries. The lion. Member for Exeter entirely misunderstood the operation of the Bill. Did the House mean to legislate for Ireland differently from what it did for England? If it did, lie would tell them that the people of Ireland would not yield to this. They gave Liver pool a Corporation, and they meant to deprive Dublin of one. With this Ireland would not be satisfied.—(Cheers from the Ministerial side.) But it appeared the point on which the whole case turns is this—because the majority of the Irish people differ from the people of England, they are not to en• joy equal laws or equal rights with the English people. If that be the case the sooner it is understood the better—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial side)—if that be the case, and it could not be misunderstood that it was, it would shake to the foundation the connection between the countries; and he, for ono, would say that it was the duty of every one to sever the connection if these unjust, these exasperating and contemp tuous distinctions were upheld.—( Loud cheers from the Re peal Members in particular, and from the Ministerial benches in general.) The Irish Catholics were designated as aliens in re . pion, in feelings, and in blood from the English people. Yes, they would be aliens from British feelings, and from the spirit of British freedom, if they submitted to those galling indignities any longer.—(Renewed cheering from the Irish portion of the Ministerial side.) He did not mean to utter any threat.—( Loud and reiterated bursts of laughter and ironical cheers from the Opposition, re sponded to by cries of " Hear" from the Ministerial side.) He was not hostile to the Union ; on the contrary, he always la boured to uphold the communion between the countries. But when he heard in another place, where he had no opportunity of repelling the foul imputation. that he, as an Irish Catho lic, was an alien in blood, alien in feeling, and alien in reli gion from the British people, and only panted for an opportu nity to shake off his allegiance to the British monarchy, he must be naturally exasperated at the charge, and should take the earliest opportunity of expressing his feelings upon it.— ( Hear, and cheers.) The Right Hon. F. SHAW rose to address the House amidst considerable confusion. Mr. Shaw, as well as we could collect, began by saying that the Hon. Gentleman who had last sat down, appeared to him entirely to run wide of the princi ple, the main scope, and the tendency of the measure, as first proposed to the House. It was the design and the practical effect of the measure the House should consider, and it was what the country looked to, no matter how, by special pleading or isolated cases of monopoly, or the testimony of arithmetic, it may be jesuitically drawn away from the real subject.— ( Hear, and oh, oh.) The facts on which the Gentleman dwelt, and by which he attempted to lure his audience, the House was not called on to szlecide that night. It was only called on to decide on the principle, but these were not the principles. When he dwelt so much on those offices which certain functionaries held in Ireland under the existing Corpo rations, and which would be left them by the Bill, he was not dealing fairly with the House or with the Bill itself. He dwelt at considerable length, and with what he doubtless considered —as did his party from their cheers—force, on the fact of the Bill in its original shape having been carried through that House by a large majority. But as it was opposed by a considera ble minority, surely that minority when backed by a large majo rity in the other House of Parliament, forming an aggregate of numbers more than the majority of that House—surely under such circumstances, the opinions of that minority were entitled to more respect than the taunts of the Hon. Member and his party would lead one to suppose they deserved.—( Cheers from the Opposition, mingled with groans from the Ministerial side.) They talked much of approximating the mode of electing certain officers in Ireland to that adopted in Eng land. But there was in reality no parity.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Then, as to the twelve towns about which there was so much said, and which were proposed to be retained by the Government and those who upheld the Government— ( Cheers from the Opposition, and " Oh, oh," and continued interruption from the Government side)—if these were given up by his side of the House, he really believed it was all they at present wanted ; but hereafter they would make fresh de mands, and demand the rest. Now, of the boroughs before in serted in schedule C, containing a population of 200,000, four had no property at all, and the best had only 13,0001. a-year. The principle then was not one of property, disguise it as you may, for some had no property at all.—( A laugh from Mr. O'Connell, and considerable interruptions frem the Ministerial side.) He stated the truth, which might be unpalatable for the Hon. Gentleman and his party to hear, for truth and jus tice in argument were not the weapons they always used.— ( Cheers from the Opposition.) But even the principle is wrong, and unfair, and absurd in other instances. How does the Hon. Gentleman reconcile, with his professed regard for justice, the insult he has offered to Newry and Dundalk. by omitting them in his schedule ? Is it that they have no Cor porations ? Why, the Report of the Commissioners proves that they have charters. He could mention ten places that either have been omitted or expunged from his schedule. He had, for instance, left out Middleton and Thomastown, which had Corporations, and inserted Antrim and Ballyshannon, which had none. This was an important fact. Guided by the power of restless and turbulent agitation—( Cheers from the Opposition)—you complain of the existing Corporations : they were exclusive, corrupt, and political, if you will. Well, then, abolish them. Cut away the evil. What more do you require ? But will you, in hatred of one evil, cherish ano ther ? Will you make a new element of mischief grow out of the old Corporations ?—( Cheers and groans.) You cry out against existing exclusiveness, and in the same breath you create a new exclusiveness, a more relentless and dangerous, because a more powerful, exclusiveness. The old Corpora ' tions whose political offences consisted in a steady devotion to the English connection and to the Protestant creed, you are about to replace by new institutions, through the instrumentality of zealous, aspiring, and, perhaps, desperate men, will notoriously be levelled at that connection and that influence.—(Cheers from the Opposition, and continued cries of " Hear, hear," and various unseemly noises from the Ministerial side.) You pro pose to extinguish existing Corporations, to provide for the rights of freemen and charitable trusts, and to provide for the administration of justice ; but in this you differ from the English Bill. Is your plan here the same as that of the English Bill?—If it is not, what then becomes of the discreditable and dishonest cant of equal principles and equal justice?—( Cheers.) You propose to appoint Town councils—for what ?—not, of course, for the purpose of su perintending the domestic concerns of the citizens, for those can be provided for without the intervention or aid of this body ; but to rear a crop of busy and mischievous men for the purposes of criminal agitation and turmoil for the regis tration of dissension and popular excitement and discontent— property they will, in most cases, have now to change for the use of the townsmen, for in many cases their funds will scarcely be adequate for the salaries of the Council them selves, their clerks, and the expenses of the hall. He would take the city of Dublin, which he knew best, and was the most important in population; it was equal to all those in schedule C, and in wealth was equal to all the other Corporations together. He would not admit that the Dublin Corporation was self-elected, or exclusive as a body, taking into account the functionaries connected with it, and holding under it. He would admit it was exclusive in religion and politics—that it was anxious to maintain a long-established order of things : but while he would consent to the demoli tion of this Corporation, he should strongly protest against its re-construction on a Catholic, and Radical, and anti- English basis. Abolish this Corporation, and you will only raise up a permanent Catholic Association, impreg nated with all the violence and intolerance of the old Association, but not containing any portion of its respectabi lity or generosity, or its regard to the fundamentals of the Con stitution. At a late meeting the other day, in Dublin of the Trades' Unions, who now put themselves as the future direc tors of the affairs of the city, disregarding alike the authority of Government and Parliament, the object of the speakers ap peared to be, and indeed some of them did not labour much to disguise the fact, to secure to themselves the spoils of the pre sent Corporation. The fact was well worthy of the serious attention of the House, if any fact could make an impression on Hon. Gentlemen opposite. He had good reason for knowing, and he spoke advisedly, that the respectable Catholics of Ire land thought that it would be much better for the happiness and prosperity of the country. if the present Corporations were swept away, and no other agitating ones created in their room. —( Hear, hear, and confu sion.) Awa y , then, with this sense , less, this' fraudulent, this delusive cry of justice to Ireland. 'Phis has ever been the war cry when any inroad was attempted r on property, freedom, or good order. What the Honourable Gentleman, Mr. O'Connell, may call justice, every lover of property or peace would call injustice and pillage, and mob . and sacerdotal tyranny. According to this theory of h i s , every sectarian caay arrogate exclusive truth for his own creed. You may as well call that Irishman a disinterested patriot because he wrings from the helpless poor, voluntary tribute.—(Loud cheers.) This was the real argu ment. He was as anxious as any other to see full justice done to Ireland, but not the one-sided, the false justice of the Hon. Member. But it was easy to pronounce from the words of the Hon. Gentleman himself what he considered justice. He has said the British people could never have justice till they had annual Parliaments, vote by ballot, universal suffrage, and